Let's have a conversation

Not in the sense that people like say - Christopher Hitchens did.
Hitchens would have eviscerated Kirk. I would have loved to watch a fantasy debate between Chris and William F. Buckley.
 
For those on the left who insist on having a 'conversation' about hot-button issues--remember that's all Charlie Kirk wanted to do.

"Let's have a conversation."

Charlie Kirk wanted to 'have a conversation,' and he got shot dead for it. Is it a conversation you want, or something else? Say, maybe, total capitulation to your own views of the world?

Think about that for a minute. Please.

Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Charlie Kirk was advocating against democracy and equal rights.

He died by the political violence he espoused. Killed by those he radicalized.
 
Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Charlie Kirk was advocating against democracy and equal rights.

He died by the political violence he espoused. Killed by those he radicalized.
I wouldn't expect someone disabused from our political universe to understand anything about what happened here. In the United States, we don't kill people for having a different opinion.

If you're happy he's dead, you're the exact reason that some of these posters in the thread want to go after the left's throat.

So, what violence did he encourage?
 
Last edited:
I stole this directly from Ace of Spades HQ for the viewing benefit of the few sane people on this Board. Peruse and comment if you please.

The Morning Report — 9/16/25​

—J.J. Sefton​

Good morning kids. From the moment we saw the horrific image of a bullet slamming through Charlie Kirk's neck, the blood libels gushed out in a torrent along with his lifeblood. One of the first things we heard was that the shot came from a pistol packing rally-goer who was firing off celebratory rounds willy nilly. And then without any evidence whatsoever, the Democrat Propaganda complex blamed the so-called right wing. Given the weight of history and of who and what Charlie Kirk was, as well as the weight of evidence that has been collected since this nightmare began, it was ridiculous on the face of it, and yet here we are one week later.

Soon after authorities identified Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, a conspiracy theory began to rocket around liberal corners of the internet. Robinson, the theory went, may have appeared to be on the left side of the political aisle but was actually a supporter of President Donald Trump trying to make liberals look bad.


The evidence that Robinson is a staunch leftist is compelling. He left anti-fascist calling cards on the ammunition found at the scene. He told family members about his disdain for Kirk's political views. He was living with a male romantic partner who identifies as transgender. Investigators who interviewed those close to Robinson came away with the clear impression that he "was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology," according to Utah governor Spencer Cox (R.).

The plurality of Americans surveyed in a YouGov poll bought into the false narrative that the alleged assassin of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk is a Republican.


Several notable figures rushed to claim that the suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was a conservative Christian, though Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and federal authorities later confirmed that Robinson became “deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” The poll found that 24% of all adults have bought into the idea that Robinson is not, in fact, liberal.

Yes you cannot hate the media enough. I better be careful, but I am assuming despite that declaration, Black Rock, 30 Rockefeller Plaza and CNN HQ will not encounter simultaneous truck bombs from anyone who read that.

Elsewhere, despite the ululations from the Leftists over Charlie Kirk's being slaughtered as is sadly, though clearly evident in the links, one more disgusting than the other as you slog through them.

It is encouraging that worldwide there have been wonderful outpourings of grief and praise for this truly remarkable man. More crucially, there have been thousands of inquiries both from here at home and from all over the world from people looking to become part of TPUSA and align themselves with the free speech movement that he championed so effectively.


As George Patton in his eponymous biopic sadly noted upon the death in battle of his Aide de camp "I can't see the reason such fine young men get killed. There are so many battles yet to fight."


But let the words of his grieving widow serve as a clarion call and a way forward.

Me:

People, dimocraps are the absolutely scum of the earth. ALL of them. Every last one of them. I;m talking the janitor, your hairdresser, the girl behind the Deli Counter, your neighbor, my Aunt Tilly, your ex girlfriend..... ALL of them.

Can they be saved? Frankly, I don't care. But it would be a lot easier than the alternative. They need to be ostracized from polite society, ignored, shunned. Then, maybe -- If they apologize and offer some sign of pennance, then maybe we can move along.

Many will, but most won't. The question is -- What to do with the truly diseased ones (many are in here) that will never, not ever, understand that all they do is serve a Hateful master of their own making.

dimocraps are scum
 
Really?

And what world do you live in?

We have djt openly lying. Openly. He's then cheered for playing his game.
But Kirk wasn't DJT.

Your point is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect someone disabused from our political universe to understand anything about what happened here. In the United States, we don't kill people for having a different opinion.

If you're happy he's dead, you're the exact reason that some of these posters in the thread want to go after the left's throat.

So, what violence did he encourage?

You most certainly do kill people for having a different opinion. Think of the murders of abortion workers in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s.

Just a couple of months ago a crazed right wing antiabortionist murdered two lawmakers in Minnesota who were fighting for women’s rights to reproductive care.

The USA has a long and sorry history of assassinating Presidents, and other political leaders, simply for having a different opinion.

You need to take a history class or six.
 
You most certainly do kill people for having a different opinion. Think of the murders of abortion workers in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s.
And what about the left in the 60s?

I don't think you want to play that game with me. This isn't the first time they have destabilized American society.
 
Well, just a couple of months ago a crazed right wing antiabortionist murdered to lawmakers in Minnesota who were fighting for women’s rights to reproductive care.
No, he murdered them for voting against a pro-illegal immigration bill.
 
Last edited:
15th post
Kirk didn't debate people. Not in the sense that people like say - Christopher Hitchens did. He baited people and played to the audience. Not the audience at the vents so much as to the audience he knew was "out there" on Youtube.

Example?
27:50 questions

Charlie is asked a question and right out of the gate he starts acting like a Cable tv host, attacking the questioner. Not sure why he didn't just answer with an explanation. He mentions "Joe Biden's America" as if a group in England is up on all the petty battles in American politics. He's playing to the camera. He knows his people will see it and the Biden reference is pure Maga bait.













and of course, even in the comments section people hear what they want and spin narratives that ignore some things.

But as I've long said: Charlie Kirk was no true debater. He was a provocateur and a bully boy of the right, and Maga Loudmouth

So what yer saying is -- He deserved to be murdered. Note the lack of a question mark.

His Children deserved to never know their Father.

His wife deserved to be a Widow.

All because you don't like the way he debates people.

You.

Are scum
 

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom